For some computing applications, such as computer networking and telecommunications, it is often necessary to store a large number of computing devices (e.g., switches, routers, servers, etc.) in a relatively small area. To facilitate such a high component density, a number of the computing devices are typically mounted together in a “rack.” A rack may also be referred to as a “chassis” or “cage,” and a variety of such rack mounted installations are known in the art.
An example of a conventional rack mounted installation 10 is illustrated in FIG. 1. The rack mounted installation 10 comprises a rack 100 and a number of raceways 51, 52, 53 for routing cables to and from the rack 100. The rack 100 comprises a rectangular-shaped housing 110 having an interior cavity 120 capable of receiving a number of individual computing devices 150. Each of the devices 150 may comprise any type of computing system or device, such as a switch, router, server, etc. Note that one or more of the devices (e.g., the two devices 150 positioned near the center of cavity 120) may comprise controller units for the rack mounted installation. The devices 150 may also be referred to as “blades”, “circuit boards”, or simply “boards.” Generally, the term “blade” will be used herein to refer to a computing device that can be received in a rack 100, such as that shown in FIG. 1. Also, it should be understood that the rack 100 may include other components—e.g., power supplies, fans, etc.—that are not shown in FIG. 1 for ease of illustration.
Many of the blades 150 will each include a number of connectors 155, each connector 155 capable of being coupled with a cable (e.g., an electrical cable or an optical cable). Cables plugged into the connectors 155 on each blade 150 are routed out to the vertical raceways 51, 52 which, in turn, direct the cables vertically upwards to an upper raceway 53 (see arrows 5 in FIG. 1). One prior approach to managing the cables extending from the blades 150 and out to the raceways 51, 52 was to simply run the cables free from their respective blade to one of the raceways 51, 52. However, as the number of ports or connectors 155 on each blade 150 increases, such an approach becomes impractical. When a blade 150 is removed from the rack 100, the spatial relationship amongst the cables, and between the cables and their respective connectors 155 on the removed blade, is not maintained. If these spatial relationships are not maintained or are otherwise not readily ascertainable, it can be very difficult to reconnect the cables to the correct ports on the blade 150 when the blade is re-installed in the rack 100 (or when a different blade having the same port relationships is installed in the rack). In addition, as a practical matter, a lack of an adequate cable management scheme results in tangling amongst the cables and, further, may make it difficult to quickly determine which cables are plugged into a specific blade.
Solutions to the above-described cable management problems have been proposed, these solutions including various structures for guiding cables along a desired route, as well as various clips for holding or bundling cables. Examples of structures for routing cables are disclosed in each of U.S. Pat. No. 6,310,294 to Di Girolamo et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,501,899 to Marrs et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,546,181 to Adapathya et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 6,584,267 to Caveney et al., whereas examples of cable clips are disclosed in each of United States Patents Des. 428,330 to Johnston et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,215,069 to Martin et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,381,393 to Matthews et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 6,539,161 to Holman et al. These solutions are, however, limited in their ability to route cables in multiple directions (e.g., cables are generally routed only sideways away from the rack). Furthermore, each of the prior art cable management components is, individually, a partial solution to cable management, and none of the proposed solutions presents a unified system for cable management.